Quote:Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.

While I will grant that this is not the ONLY possible definition, why (other than "just not what it means"... and do you have a basis for that claim?) is this not a valid definition?

I've just never heard of it like that. Gimme a few min. I'll getcha a few links I like that accurately describe the diff. Gotta find them

"If you cannot explain it simply, you don't understand it enough" -Albert Einstein

Quote:Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.

While I will grant that this is not the ONLY possible definition, why (other than "just not what it means"... and do you have a basis for that claim?) is this not a valid definition?

~referencing that chart, you can actually be a gnostic atheist (though a vast majority of atheists are agnostic). you can't prove a negative so it's really illogical to be a gnostic atheist....but then again you can't prove the supernatural either, and there are still gnostic theists even though that's illogical too. Since it's illogical to be gnostic, most everyone is agnostic, whether they're theists or atheists. Since most atheists are agnostic, that's where the misunderstanding comes from.

"If you cannot explain it simply, you don't understand it enough" -Albert Einstein

I think we agree on definitions but someone misread something there and we're quibbling over that. Did you perhaps think I was talking about weak versus strong atheism, rather than weak versus strong agnosticism?

(23-08-2015 08:17 PM)Reltzik Wrote: Nothing in the video contradicting what I said.

I think we agree on definitions but someone misread something there and we're quibbling over that. Did you perhaps think I was talking about weak versus strong atheism, rather than weak versus strong agnosticism?

ohhhhh! yup! i see what you're saying now. sorry guys my bad. carry on i agree. agnostic is making the claim of not knowing, it is not making the claim that things cannot be known (even though it cannot be known if it could we'd be in a gnostic situation)

"If you cannot explain it simply, you don't understand it enough" -Albert Einstein

If that is not what he claims; then how can the weight of evedince lie on me?

His whole thing, this whole time, has been ; PROOVE IT!!!!!! CERIAL RAPIST.

SO HEAR!

This thing we speak of...All of it....is but one of various direction.

The fact is that these two directions are opposite to one another; so is the way of forever, or infinity.

The negative direction is from greed alone.

Greed itself comes from an outside source( as in other worldly either by alternative dimension, or way of space travel as we know it(except that is seemingly impossible with the amount of observation equipment for the physical, or material realm.)

The straightforward direction is infinitely more powerful in that is has and shows abundance. It has and shows power through all evident creation in every conceivable way, and yet unconseivable ways. It is always direct and obvious; such as the Universe minus greed/ and all its related negativity.

It is obvious that we must strive for good for our very existence. It is mathematically accurate in that due to the very opposing nature of existence it consumes itself, seemingly slowly in a way, but never the less, giving the circumstances, we must use the gift of all creation under the direction of the Creator/ giving/ rightious/ obvious/good/ existence, as opposed to void and the absence there of.

We must be ever vigilant because the term "I Am" can decievingly turn to "I on"

This is slavery of existence, is greed, and will lead to early, abrupt, catastrophic end for humanity and it's particular beautiful chance.

Look around the galaxy, our chances are not the first. And will not be the last.

We can be for existence for the sake there of(us) under the One Creator, or we can be for the negative greedy materialistic aspects of the physical realm and be tormented and eventually be wiped from existence that will no doubt continue on without us.

If that is not what he claims; then how can the weight of evedince lie on me?

His whole thing, this whole time, has been ; PROOVE IT!!!!!! CERIAL RAPIST.

Because you are the one making the claim, not him. Why is that so hard to understand?

Quote:SO HEAR!

This thing we speak of...All of it....is but one of various direction.

The fact is that these two directions are opposite to one another; so is the way of forever, or infinity.

The negative direction is from greed alone.

Greed itself comes from an outside source( as in other worldly either by alternative dimension, or way of space travel as we know it(except that is seemingly impossible with the amount of observation equipment for the physical, or material realm.)

The straightforward direction is infinitely more powerful in that is has and shows abundance. It has and shows power through all evident creation in every conceivable way, and yet unconseivable ways. It is always direct and obvious; such as the Universe minus greed/ and all its related negativity.

It is obvious that we must strive for good for our very existence. It is mathematically accurate in that due to the very opposing nature of existence it consumes itself, seemingly slowly in a way, but never the less, giving the circumstances, we must use the gift of all creation under the direction of the Creator/ giving/ rightious/ obvious/good/ existence, as opposed to void and the absence there of.

We must be ever vigilant because the term "I Am" can decievingly turn to "I on"

This is slavery of existence, is greed, and will lead to early, abrupt, catastrophic end for humanity and it's particular beautiful chance.

Look around the galaxy, our chances are not the first. And will not be the last.

We can be for existence for the sake there of(us) under the One Creator, or we can be for the negative greedy materialistic aspects of the physical realm and be tormented and eventually be wiped from existence that will no doubt continue on without us.

Thank you. I know, I'm sorry.

All praise is through creation, towards the Creator/ the 1 God.

Present your evidence that there is a "Creator/the 1 God".

The rest of your post was largely unintelligible.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(22-08-2015 01:58 PM)Davidjayjordan Wrote: This topic has been proven, so let me move on, referring to this principle of evolution being a myth and a religion in upcoming threads. Thanks for the confirmations above...

Yours truly

IHS

David

The only thing that has been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt, is that you are an ignorant douchebag.